I think so...Exercise science journals, elite athlete protocols, etc.
the issue with bodybuilding, or more appropriatley muscle mass building is how can it be quantified? Size has variables, nobody wants frequent biopsies, MRI are expensive and possibly harmful over time. Plus there is a whopping supplement industry funding smoke and mirrors instead of real science.
Plus bodybuilding is a questionable sport at best.
...to add, what would be the real point of finding out the best and fastest way to build muscle size? What good is having large muscles?
Strong muscles, or fast muscles, or new muscles where none existed before...yes, these are worthy scientific study areas.
But how best to build bigger muscles? Scientists already know enough on how exercise and some protein in the diet can be used to (unsuccessfully, I might add) address wasting diseases such as Duchenne's or sarcopenia or AIDS. For those with diseases, drugs are usually the answer, and dietary/exercise regimens do add some marginal value. It wouldn't be easy to get grant money from legitimate sources to continue more in-depth studies into these areas. Typically, the grant money comes from supplement companies, who, of course, often have an agenda. Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomly assigned, and even cross-over designed studies can help. But then, we can say that about a lot of post-secondary graduate degree programs funded by corporate interests, and the influence they surely have over the purity of scientific study...the study of "muscle size" is not surely alone in this regard.
What possible real-world benefit is there for the average scientist to study how best for a modern, average, healthy populace to build muscle SIZE. It's purely cosmetic, and quite ridiculous when you think about it. I still like doing it, but I don't expect a new wing to open up at John Hopkins University to study the intricacies of sets and reps and different cooked chicken breast meat on building muscle size over the long term.
